Akton

I've made it known before that I'm not the biggest Struzan fan. That said, the top half of this poster is not all that bad. I don't know what the hell he was thinking with the floating Han down at the bottom though... Terrible in terms of composition and horribly executed - a stiff, awkward pose and what looks like a cut-and-paste job with his head (with a pretty crappy likeness of Harrison Ford to boot - pretty shocking considering that's usually Struzan's strong point).

I dunno what it is with this notion that Drew Struzan is some integral John Williams or Ralph McQuarrie-like part of the fabric of Star Wars. He just isn't. Besides, couldn't Tom Jung and / or Roger Kastel also be tempted to come out of retirement?

SilverWook said:

It's debatable whether Kihotay was just a crazy old guy who admired the Jedi, and found a lost lightsaber though. His name is a lot better than some prequel characters I won't name. ;)

He did don some armor when going into battle.

The Obi Wan flashback story from issue #24, set during the Old Republic era gives us a different outfit, which ties in nicely with Luke's ROTJ look.

 Thanks for posting that - I was thinking of that issue as I was writing my last post.

ZkinandBonez said:

Also I'm not sure if I buy the whole thing about Anakin having been born on Tatooine, hence the outfit on his ghost. Even the PT had the Jedi's wear different uniforms, and even express different ideologies through clothing, so I don't see why the pre-PT lore couldn't have gone for a similar thing. 

The lack of discipline with respect to uniforms among the Jedi is one of the many things I disliked about what Lucas did to them in the PT. The fact that the Jedi are explicitly called "knights" should have informed their cinematic depiction a bit more. Knights are organized, disciplined, and militaristic - and even if the analogy to monks is made, monastic orders (be they Catholic, Orthodox, or Buddhist) are known for wearing a single, distinctive garb, to represent a giving up of individuality (in direct contrast to what Lucas came up with in the PT).

The "wear what you want" thing is reflective of the general problem with the Jedi in the PT, summed up nicely by Mike Stoklasa as "disorganized hippies running a war."

Anakin's force ghost robes obviously needed to convey visually (and in very little time) - that he was no longer evil. thus he could not be wearing the color he wore as Vader. Making him look just like Obi-Wan was the most effective and expedient visual shorthand they could come up with. The most reasonable in-universe explanation still strikes me as being that it is a Tatooinian garb - Obi-Wan spent most of his later life there, and Anakin (whether or not he was born there) certainly lived there at the time he met Obi-Wan and went off with him on his damn fool idealistic crusade. 

And as to Luke's TFA uniform - it's not a carbon copy of the PT moisture farmer robes, so I'm happy about that. The fact that he's a Jedi Master now makes me okay with him having moved beyond the uniform of a Jedi Knight. also the fact that he's the last of the Old Order / First of the New means he's earned the right to wear something unique - with the color white being perhaps a repudiation of the Jedi Order of Old.

ZkinandBonez said:

Also people tend to forget that Luke's black outfit in ROTJ was supposed to represent his brush with the dark side. Of course him actually tuning evil was eventually written out, but Luke did have his dark side moment while fighting Vader in the end. 
As far as the lore is concerned I can't remember having ever read that it was supposed to be an actual Jedi outfit. I'm pretty sure it was just something he put together before meeting Jabba (even the pre-PT EU added a practical explanation for the outfit.)
And of course when we see Anakin (Sebastian Shaw) at the end of ROTJ he's wearing the same moisture farmer outfit that Obi-Wan wore in ANH. Not to mention that Yoda more or less wears the same outfit. I don't actually now if this is a pre- or post-PT thing, but the reasoning behind the Jedi both in the OT and PT wearing moisture farmer outfits, or rather just a casual outfit common among colonists and farmers, were because they were supposed to be ascetics; monks more or less. Hence the humble outfits.
And Lucas was quite adamant back in the pre-PT days that the Jedi order was basically just warrior Buddhist monks, even comparing them to Yogis once. 

 I certainly took Luke's ROTJ outfit as a "Jedi uniform," and, given the context of the film, it seems we were were meant to. Yes, he resembles Vader, and there is thematic significance to that. But I always saw the primary, in-universe reason for that similarity being the simple fact that Vader was once a Jedi too; thus he continued to dress more or less like a Jedi, and continued to carry and use what Palpy disparagingly referred to as "a Jedi's weapon." I mean, why else would Luke make his first public appearance as a Jedi (that's how he introduced himself to Jabba) dressed in such a strikingly distinctive uniform? The fact that the outfit strongly resembles a priest's cassock also cemented the idea (in my mind at least) that this was indeed a "Jedi uniform." to boil it all down to "he wore black because he was turning toward the Dark Side" strikes me as overly simplistic, and pretty nonsensical from an in-universe standpoint (Luke: "I'm seriously thinking of turning to the Dark Side, so I'd better get myself some pretty funereal duds ASAP...").

As to Anakin's ghost wearing Tatooinian robes - well, Anakin was a Tatooinian. So, there's that.

Yoda's garb was fairly different from Anakin / Obi-Wan's - much more generic hobo / hermit clothing - very rudimentary. Also, I'm of the opinion that Yoda - being a Jedi master (not a Jedi Knight) - would not have worn the militaristic uniform of a Jedi Knight, nor would he have ever carried a lightsaber. That was also Lucas' opinion back in the OT days, as evidenced by the Rinzler books.

Abrams confirms there will be no mention of Midichlorians in TFA:

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-force-awakens-midi-chlorians/

This is a huge relief for me. Since (as the title suggests) the nature of the Force will be a prominent theme in TFA, I was deeply concerned that Midichlorians would have to rear their stupid heads once more, but this proves that Abrams and Kasdan don't feel the least bit constrained by the nonsense established by the PT.

ray_afraid said:

So you really think this thing wouldn't stick out in the Cantina?
Sure, there are some low budget masks in there, but I have little problem throwing a little imagination in and believing those creatures really live in that world. They don't look purposefully goofy.

These gentlemen would like to have a say in the matter:

pablumatic said:

AntcuFaalb said:

This image makes Carrie look significantly older than 58, unfortunately.

I'm not saying she looks bad, but I am saying that this leak makes her look worse than she does.

 It seems that age has hit all the returning actors pretty hard, and Carrie definitely looks older than 58 in that image. 

 Look at ol' Sheev in RotJ. The Dark Side* is known to age its practitioners, isn't it?

...or has that rumor been quashed yet?

*"The Dark Side's" real-life equivalent in this case being, of course, lots n' lots of cocaine.

darklordoftech said:

Yoda isn't wearing the same garb, and if Anakin's also from Tatooine...

 Yeah, I never saw that as "Jedi" garb either. To me, Anakin and Obi-Wan were just dressed like common Tatooine folk (as alluded to by Obi-Wan in SW: "He felt he should have stayed here and not gotten involved.")

darklordoftech said:

Akton said:

towne32 said:

I think I mind the Jedi robes least of everyone on this forum. Yeah, the reason for them is wrong. But having such modest monk-like clothing for a group that is (supposed to be) divorcing themselves from their emotions is not the worst.

Mainly, I'd be concerned of what they would come up with if they decided to go all out designing Jedi uniforms. It could be much worse if they went for something like an 80's Who Gallifreyan aesthetic.

They could've just gone with what they'd already established in 1983. 

After all, that's what Chiang did. Chiang's concept art had the Jedi wear what Luke wears in ROTJ.

 I hadn't realized that. Bully for Chiang - he just went up a few notches in my book.

It sucks to have an idiot for a boss.

Voss Caltrez said:

So visually, the 1950s USA reference with Dex's Diner took me right out of the film instantly. That had no place in the SW universe. 

 Couldn't agree more - that was hatefully inappropriate.

towne32 said:

I think I mind the Jedi robes least of everyone on this forum. Yeah, the reason for them is wrong. But having such modest monk-like clothing for a group that is (supposed to be) divorcing themselves from their emotions is not the worst.

Mainly, I'd be concerned of what they would come up with if they decided to go all out designing Jedi uniforms. It could be much worse if they went for something like an 80's Who Gallifreyan aesthetic.

 They could've just gone with what they'd already established in 1983. That's what's so irksome to me - their work was already done. All they needed to do afterward was just give a crap about continuity with the OT. In fact, that's pretty much the problem with the PT in a nutshell.

The Jedi robes thing infuriates me.

As a kid, the single most iconic image that said "Return of the Jedi" to me was Luke dressed in what we were clearly meant to believe was a Jedi "uniform" - black, militaristic, but with a distinctly priestly touch. The film's title referred in large part to the return of the Jedi Order, as well as the return of Luke himself as a Jedi, both of which were represented visually by Luke's bold decision to dress in the distinctive uniform of a Jedi, first seen in the hologram where he introduces himself as "Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight."

But if the Jedi uniform is just the generic brown robes worn by Tatooinian men, then what the hell was Luke weaking in ROTJ? And why was he wearing it? It's been reduced to a one-note visual metaphor for Luke's potential fall to the Dark Side and has no sensible in-universe explanation (apart, perhaps, from being an attempt by Luke to cosplay as his own father).

I always wanted the PT to give us the image of legions of black-clad Jedi fighting armies of white-armored Mandalorians. Instead we got... well, we all know what we got, don't we?

I think Jude Law could have made a good Anakin. He was in his late 20's - early 30's when the PT was made (the appropriate PT era age for Anakin, IMO), he had the acting chops (though that's not hard when your competition is Hayden Christensen) and I think he bore a reasonable resemblance to a young Sebastian Shaw.

adywan said:

Andy Serkis' role in TFA has now officially been confirmed. He will be playing a  character named Supreme Leader Snoke.

Hrm... Name strikes my ear as kind of silly... But certainly no more so than at least five major PT characters I can think of.

Apart from that - he's not a "Darth" anything. I like that (as I'm sure many others here do). I think that puts the (very persistent) Darth Plagueis rumors to rest (speaking of silly names).

This is great news for those of us hoping for a ST that totally ignores the PT (and thereby leaves room for a future PT remake). After all, if the ST were being made with a spirit of resigned acceptance of the PT, one imagines they would take up certain loose threads from the PT to tie the saga together, and to redeem the PT (to whatever extent that's possible). Plagueis seemed liek the biggest loose thread to me, and I genuinely expected them to pick it up (though I didn't want them to)... He's the Big Bad behind the Big Bad; he's pretty much Anakin's father; AND, although dead, is known to have achieved a method of "cheating" death. I'd go so far as to assume that Lucas intentionally crafted the character to be a potential Sequel Trilogy villain, if I weren't already convinced that his screenwriting ineptitude forced him to crap Plagueis out as an expository expediency.

Either way, Serkis isn't playing him and that's a good thing.

joefavs said:

Struzan's OT posters aren't my favorites, but all the EU novel covers he did in the 90s hold some serious nostalgia. If he doesn't do the main poster, I'd like to see him do something.

 Fair enough.

Though I'm not a fan, I don't mean to give the impression that I hate Struzan. I don't. I just think this aura that's built up around him as The Star Wars poster guy is utterly undeserved. None of the iconic main release OT posters were done by Struzan. I think those guys (Jung, Kastel, Sano) have gotten the short shrift, as Struzan is (as poster artists go) a household name, while they - for whatever reason - don't get much recognition beyond the walls of Star Wars fandom. 

Ronster said:

You can definitely see the influence it had on Altmans Excalibur

 

Surely you mean Boorman's Excalibur.

Though now you've got me thinking about Excalibur as directed by Robert Altman... overlong, excessively talky, Arthur played by Elliot Gould, Guenevere played by Shelley Duvall...

SilverWook said:

 IG-88 really wasn't built to do much except stand there and look intimidating.

 And he does that oh so incredibly well...

If this scene actually exists, then I want it released yesterday.

If not, I'd be happy to see something equivalent in the Boba Fett spinoff film.

RicOlie_2 said:

I guess I'm alone in not finding her attractive....

You are not, Ric. Not much there in the eye of this beholder either.

But Andy Serkis has helped to make motion capture a much more respectable thing than it was in the TPM days and, as I understand it, she more than has the chops, so I look forward to seeing her in action with no reservations at all...

And for those who find her beautiful - it's not like there's no precedent for beautiful, Oscar-winning actresses taking roles in which they're made unrecognizably ugly. Heck, that's how some of them win their Oscars...

timdiggerm said:

dan76 said:

IG-88 fighting Boba Fett inside Slave 1 from Empire. Apparently they spent two days filming this.

 Wait, what? WHAT?

 I second that - WHAT?!

I read the Rinzler books cover to cover and I'm pretty damn sure I'd remember something like that if it were mentioned...

timdiggerm said:

Akton said:

Bingowings said:

Focusing on a core group of characters isn't universe shrinkage.

Falstaff appearing across a group of plays doesn't make Shakespeare's oeuvre smaller. It's enriching it with detail over brevity.

It is 100% fan service but fan service can be done well it doesn't have to be to the general PT level of naffness.

Adding new characters however is universe enlargement.

 Very salient points.

And, lest anyone forget, Boba Fett's very creation as a character was a kind of fan service... His appearance in the Holiday Special was, in essence, a fan service two years ahead of his first proper film appearance. What I'm hoping for in his possible inclusion in TFA, and his possible portrayal by an actor of such gravitas as Max Von Sydow, is to finally see some substantive incorporation of the character into the Saga; to justify the hype machine created around him that's nearly as old as the franchise itself. That'd be the very opposite of mere fan service. To me, fan service is Han Solo saying "I always shoot first" or some such stupid (but hopefully not inevitable) thing.

 Ugh, that potential Han line would be awful. :(

And his appearance in the HS is not fan service; it's promotion.

I don't see the two as necessarily mutually exclusive. Fan service is characterized by its gratuitousness and if there's one word that describes the pre-ESB Boba Fett hype campaign, it's "gratuitous."

In any case, I think we can agree that pretty much every iteration of Boba Fett post-ROTJ (his death scene in which being a famous example of fan disservice) has been little to nothing more than fan service (the most egregious example being his fourth wall-breaking, composited cameo in the SW SE). That's why I'd like to see his elderly self play a pivotal role in the events of this first episode of the Sequel Trilogy, so much the better if he's played sans helmet and armor by Max Von Sydow...

Bingowings said:

Focusing on a core group of characters isn't universe shrinkage.

Falstaff appearing across a group of plays doesn't make Shakespeare's oeuvre smaller. It's enriching it with detail over brevity.

It is 100% fan service but fan service can be done well it doesn't have to be to the general PT level of naffness.

Adding new characters however is universe enlargement.

 Very salient points.

And, lest anyone forget, Boba Fett's very creation as a character was a kind of fan service... His appearance in the Holiday Special was, in essence, a fan service two years ahead of his first proper film appearance. What I'm hoping for in his possible inclusion in TFA, and his possible portrayal by an actor of such gravitas as Max Von Sydow, is to finally see some substantive incorporation of the character into the Saga; to justify the hype machine created around him that's nearly as old as the franchise itself. That'd be the very opposite of mere fan service. To me, fan service is Han Solo saying "I always shoot first" or some such stupid (but hopefully not inevitable) thing.

There's room in this Saga to give this pivotal character a decent sendoff to make up for the disgraceful one he was given 32 years ago. There are more than enough new characters and worlds in this film to allay any fears of "universe shrinkage," in my estimation.

Can't wait for that. Ought to look good on the shelf next to my Mars Attacks, Wacky Packages, and Garbage Pail Kids volumes.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Akton said:

But it suddenly (concord) dawned on me

*groan* 

Ah, thank you, thank you... It's nice to be appreciated...

The MVS-as-Boba-Fett thing was something I theorized not long after he was cast, and before I found out it was an actual rumor. It seemed odd to cast an actor that age in this particular film, unless it was because they wanted a character old enough to have spanned all three trilogies. In fact, I racked my brain trying to come up with characters whose age fit his in this timeframe, and for two solid days, I had myself convinced that Max Von Sydow, renowned international star of stage and screen whose career spans more than six decades, was cast to play Kitster, Anakin's childhood chum.

But it suddenly (concord) dawned on me that having an elderly Swedish actor play the octogenarian version of a little Maori boy is really no more insane than having him play the octogenarian version of a little Pakistani boy, and I became unshakably convinced that we'd be seeing a geriatric Boba Fett in TFA. But I soon dismissed such a twist as being too similar to what Abrams pulled with Khan... And now I read about this somewhat dubious "confirmation"...

I dunno... It does make sense on a number of levels, not the least of which being good business sense in keeping Boba fresh in the public's mind just in time for his spinoff film. And I heartily support so big a middle finger at the PT as casting an actor so irreconcilably different from Temuera Morrison. And, personally, the very idea; the very phrase "Max Von Sydow as Boba Fett" fills me with absurd delight. Just imagine a Star Wars fan sitting down to watch Flash Gordon in the theater in December of 1980, The Empire Strikes Back still fresh in his mind. Imagine telling him that the selfsame Max Von Sydow portraying Ming the Merciless up there on the big screen, will one day play the aged version of that badass new bounty hunter guy from Empire. I mean, it certainly beats having to tell him that Prince Vultan would go on to play an obese, West Indian-accented rabbit-frog in the first of an entire trilogy of shitty Star Wars films...

I guess what I'm saying is, "I like it. I hope it's true."

generalfrevious said:

And that's all we fucking have, two films. Oh why why why did it have to fall apart so fast into indefensible crap? Now I have swallow the jagged pill of a cliffhanger because of Jedi. The scales were alreasy tipped against us by the time Episode I came out. And come next year we will still only have two films because of the stupid plot twists we will all be but hung about in Episode VII, which will undo everything that happened in Jedi. At least if they just abandoned the movie franchise like they should 30 years ago things would have been much more tolerable.

Reading this guy's posts is like watching Requiem for a Dream set to The Cure's Disintegration whilst eating uncooked generic ravioli straight from the can in the antechamber of a funeral home on a rainy afternoon in late October.